Where a family member is in government service, compassionate appointment is barred without dependency inquiry.

The petitioner’s father, Balram Sahu, was an Assistant Mechanic under the Water Resources Department and died in harness on 22 April 2021.

The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment, but his claim was rejected on the ground that his elder brother, Mukesh Kumar Sahu, was already employed in government service.

In an earlier petition, WPS No. 4269 of 2021, the High Court directed the authorities to reconsider the petitioner’s claim after conducting an inquiry into dependency.

Upon reconsideration, the authorities again rejected the application by order dated 24 March 2022, relying on Clause 6A of the applicable compassionate appointment policy.

The petitioner contended that he lived separately with his mother and sister and that his government-employed brother did not financially support them.

Whether the petitioner was eligible for compassionate appointment when his elder brother, a member of the deceased employee’s family, was already employed in government service under Clause 6A of the applicable policy?

Whether the Court could direct an inquiry into whether the government-employed brother financially supported or maintained the petitioner and other family members?

Compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of recruitment and must be granted strictly in accordance with the applicable policy.

Clause 6A of the Chhattisgarh compassionate appointment policy provides that where any member of the family of a deceased married government servant is already in government service, other members of the family are not eligible for compassionate appointment.

In State of Chhattisgarh v. Muniya Mukharjee, Writ Appeal No. 33 of 2022, the Division Bench held that Clause 6A does not contemplate an inquiry into the financial condition or actual financial support provided by the government-employed family member.

In State of Chhattisgarh & Others v. Umesh Thakur, Writ Appeal No. 236 of 2022, it was held that directing an inquiry into dependency or financial support, despite an express policy bar, would amount to rewording or revising the policy, which is impermissible under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The petitioner’s elder brother was a government employee and fell within the category of family members contemplated by Clause 5 and Clause 6A of the policy.

Consequently, the express policy bar operated against the petitioner’s claim.

The petitioner’s assertion that his brother lived separately and did not financially maintain him could not override the policy, because the policy did not make eligibility dependent upon proof of actual financial support.

In light of Muniya Mukharjee and Umesh Thakur, the Court held that it could not order a further dependency or financial-support inquiry, as doing so would effectively modify the governing policy through judicial directions.

The authorities therefore correctly rejected the petitioner’s application in accordance with Clause 6A.

The Court further held that the alleged absence of financial support from the brother was irrelevant and could not justify an inquiry contrary to the policy.

The challenge to the order dated 24 March 2022 was rejected, the writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit, and no order as to costs was made.